Kyoto Skeptics Have Egg on Their Faces

Why do you call Lomborg a crank? I realise that the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty accused him of, unsurprisingly, scientific dishonesty, but their ruling was flatly rejected by the Danish Ministry of Science, saying “the DCSD has not documented where [Dr Lomborg] has allegedly been biased in his choice of data and in his argumentation, and…the ruling is completely void of argumentation for why the DCSD find that the complainants are right in their criticisms of [his] working methods."

His argument is certainly contrary to received wisdom, his methods may prove suspect, his data may turn out to be wrong, but no-one has demonstrated the latter two thus far. In fact, the book over which he was accused of scientific dishonesty was not even primary research - it was an analysis of the correspondence of environmentalists’ claims, and their own data. It really irritates me when someone gets written off as a “crank” simply for saying something which goes against the preponderance of scientific opinion. Address the arguments, not the man.

And while I’m on the topic of scientific dishonesty, those atmospheric concentration charts you linked to are profoundly annoying me, with their exaggerated scaling (I know they’re not yours - I’m annoyed at the IPCC). Our CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions are bad enough that they don’t need oversell - it just makes the case appear weak to do so.

Because they never would’ve signed it. The argument goes that the industrialized countries have produced the bulk of the greenhouse gasses and that newly industrialized countries should get an equivalent pass. At least until Kyoto II.

And how, exactly is this legally binding?

CuriousCanuck, tariffs are regulated by WTO. Unless you expect China and India and other countries to impose a massive tax on their exports your idea is DOA.

Well, because I’m in the Pit and I can. :slight_smile: I agree that the charges of outright academic dishonesty against the non-climatologist (he’s a statistician by trade) were groundless, but his analysis of and proposals for retroactively addressing abrupt climate change are simply David Icke-ean in their conception. Read the Skeptical Environmentalist even more skeptically than you’d watch a Michael Moore film, I’d suggest.

Heaven will punish me for hijacking this thread to point out my amusment for this new cliche. :frowning: :frowning: :frowning:

bluecanary: Why doesn’t it include China and India?

Grey: Because they never would’ve signed it. The argument goes that the industrialized countries have produced the bulk of the greenhouse gasses and that newly industrialized countries should get an equivalent pass. At least until Kyoto II.

Right. China and India have both accepted or acceded to (which I think is in the same legal category as ratification, though I’m not sure) the Kyoto Protocol, as of August 2002. But no cuts are required in their emissions (or in those of some other developing-nation big emitters like Brazil) during the period up to 2012, when the current version of the treaty will expire (hopefully to be replaced by more substantial emissions restrictions). The no-cuts-required countries are generally called “non-Annex-I countries”, as distinct from the countries which are required to reduce their emissions below 1990 levels, listed in a section of the treaty called Annex I.

Grey: And how, exactly is this legally binding?

How is the Kyoto Protocol legally binding, you mean? How is any international treaty legally binding? If you’re asking about the specific compliance and enforcement provisions for Annex I countries to meet Kyoto targets, you can read about them here.

So if you fail to meet the targets you either get to make up for it later or get barred from trading for the carbon credits you weren’t getting enough of anyway.

I love international treaties. :slight_smile:

I suppose there’s not much more anyone could hope for. Ultimately it depends on getting the respective electorates behind green plans more than signing any treaty.

Regarding Australia’s refusal to sign, our Environment Minister made the following statement (as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald):

— quote —
Australia’s energy-efficient exporting industries would be penalised under the Kyoto Protocol, Environment Minister Ian Campbell says.

He said it was counter-productive to the cause of curtailing man-made climate change to prevent Australia exporting its high-quality energy products and low-emissions technology.
— end quote —

It has been widely claimed that Australia will actually meet the conditions set down in the Kyoto protocol, leading some to point out in that case it is doubly confusing as to why the Government will not sign. All the pain without the gain, effectively.

Most likely real reason why the Government won’t sign (in my opinion) - because George W. won’t.

Even if George W. wanted to it wouldn’t matter. The Senate laughed the Kyoto treaty out of the country the last time it came before them.

As it is I have no problem with us trying to reduce industrial emissions, industrial emissions cause harm in a few different ways. The problem is the Kyoto Treaty is linked the absolutely bunk idea that global warming is being caused by humans.

Heaven will punish you for saying what I was thinking (though I actually do wish we would sign the KT, this new catchphrase is annoying) :frowning: :frowning: :frowning:

I would like to thank Kimstu for presenting this nearly perfect exemplar of the dangers of quote mining.

Hint: go look at the actual arguments being put forth from which your quotations are taken. You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Given our great-grandchildren will almost certainly be much much more wealthy than us, live longer lives, I think we OUGHT to drown them, just to teach those uppity whippersnappers a lesson.

Really?

What is ‘bunk’, exactly: that CO[sub]2[/sub] concentration has risen enormously in the last century, that this increase is man made (see Emissions column), that increases in this concentration always preceded temperature increases in the past, or that the tempertaure is rising this time?

Either way, not even your own government agrees with you any more.

Oceans, too.

I was wondering if you were aware that the vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions (98%) have nothing to do with humans, but are rather related to plants?

There is tons of evidence to go against the current global warming debate. Of many issues in the world today global warming is one that I was literally shocked by when I did research on it. You don’t have to look that hard to find very informed people simply saying, “The proof just isn’t there.” They can’t prove causation and even association is tricky.

I’ll give you a few links here, but if you have a true desire to gain greater understanding of the subject (and aren’t just looking to try and “win” a debate) a lot of this will have to be stuff you research on your own.

This isn’t great debates and I also don’t have sources organized in a way that makes it easy to itemize here (nor do I care to do so, and since this is in the pit I feel no compelling reasons to do so) but below are extensive sources about why the mainstream is just plain wrong about global warming:

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

Link 4

Link 5

Some key facts for everyone to know about global warming:

-Some have said temperatures have risen by about 1 degree C over the past 100 years. This number is based on ground based temperature monitoring stations. Ground based stations are more heavily in urban areas than in rural areas. Urban areas are known to suffer from the “urban heat island” effect, because all that concrete causes heat to pool there and cause inacurate results for temperature monitoring stations there.

When we look at the satellite record, not biased by the urban heat island effect the global warming over the past 100 years has been neglibible and we are still significantly below the temperature we were at in the early middle ages, when greenland had lots of arable land.

-Increases in the Earth’s temperature correlate almost perfectly to increases in solar activity. Many scientists believe that the sun is what affects our global climate change, not human beings. Especially since human beings only contribute about 2% to greenhouse gas emissions.

Link 6

The fact is firstly we cannot clearly link the human contribution to greenhouse gas emissions to increased temperature (an increased temperature that is overstated by most sources.) We can show that as CO2 goes up, so does global temperature, but it is not a direct correlation. CO2 has gone up steadily from 1900-2000, yet during the middle of the 20th century there was a period of global cooling that does not associate at all with CO2 levels. What it does invariably associate with is levels of solar activity.

And aside from that, greenhouse gases are mostly the result of natural processes, not human beings.

The ones in equilibrium, you mean, like water vapour, but unlike CO2?

One can have evidence against a debate?

False.

False (lower graph). Greenland had arable land because of the path of the Great Ocean Conveyor, whose path is believed to have changed slightly in the past 1000 years. That is why global warming might make eg. Britain drastically colder.

Over vastly longer timescales, perhaps. In terms of what happens over a century like the CO2 concentration, no.

Some scientists, maybe, but even I’m one of them. Not climatologists.

Look at these graphs very carefully. Water vapour is not there because it is in equilibrium. Understand?

Pardon me, but that sounds exactly like a direct correlation. If a temperature rise always follows a CO2 rise, and it does, what else should we call it?

False (upper graph).

Only on much longer timescales than within a single century.

But increases in greenhouse gases are man made.

I have looked into this stuff. Can you really say that you understand the findings of the world’s climate experts?

Kimstu: Gotta agree with this. You picked a really, really bad example in tomndebb. When I read the OP, I thought “huh? tomndebb said that? that really doesn’t sound like what tomndebb would say”.

And of course, when you read the quotes in context, they don’t make the argument that you think they do.

There are probably quotes that you could have found that supported your case better. :slight_smile:

Reading through again, Martin, I see that it is short cycle solar activity you are talking about, ie. Solar variation theory. I’m afraid that even here, the mechanism is just far too weak to explain what we have seen in the last centrury, let alone in the last 400,000 years.

tomndebb, Desmostylus, can you explain exactly what you think is wrong with my use of tomndebb’s quotes? In fact, I did carefully read all the posts and threads from which I drew all those quotes, and so far I stand by my selections.

I am certainly not arguing that tomndebb is or was opposed to the Kyoto Protocol. However, he does seem to have gone on record back in 2002 and 2003 as stating that he thought the Protocol was “probably doomed” even without Bush’s support, and that its failure was a source of “everlasting relief” to European governments. In my book, that adds up to his predicting that Kyoto wouldn’t be implemented.

Explain to me how I’m wrong about that, and I’ll retract and apologize. I certainly wouldn’t want to mock anybody unjustly.

The problem is in the juxtaposition of tomndebb’s position with that of a dishonest, idealogically driven asshole like december who actually was opposed.

There’s a big difference between predicting that something won’t happen, based on a reasonably well informed and cynical observation of the current state of affairs, and advocating that something should not happen because el Presidente says so.

Note that I don’t presume to speak for tomndebb, and that the criticism that I’m offereing isn’t intended to be harsh.

Desmostylus: The problem is in the juxtaposition of tomndebb’s position with that of a dishonest, idealogically driven asshole like december who actually was opposed.
There’s a big difference between predicting that something won’t happen, based on a reasonably well informed and cynical observation of the current state of affairs, and advocating that something should not happen because el Presidente says so.

Sorry, but my goal here is to mock anybody who made pessimistic predictions about the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, whether they did so in sorrow or in glee, honestly or dishonestly, in ideological blindness or in what they perceived to be thoughtful realism.

I regret that this has the effect of lumping tomndebb into the same category with a driveling ass like december, but maybe it’ll teach him to be a bit more optimistic next time. :wink:

However, I apologize if my OP didn’t make it sufficiently clear that I wasn’t trying to tar every “Kyoto skeptic” with the brush of “climate change skeptic” or “Kyoto opponent”. I would also like to apologize for being so polite in the Pit.